Yes Democrats, there IS a global test

So today I wake up to read a thread titled Yes Republicans, there IS a global test
wherein the OP and others chastise the republican party by repeatedly pointing to a specific quote with which they attempt to lay blame for the
downgrade in our credit rating squarely on the GOP.

Evidently you didn't read the words of the guy from S&P... he clearly stated the reasons... and they weren't Obamas policies...

He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the
high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.

You really should read the full OP and reflect before posting

Well now we have this:

David Beers, global head of sovereign and international public finance ratings at S&P, told "Fox News Sunday" that governments and Congresses
come and go, but spending on entitlements persistently drags U.S. debt further into the red

"The key thing is, yes, entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where
the cost pressures are greatest," Beers said.

Beers said he faults both Congress and the Obama administration for "the difficulty of all sides in finding a consensus around fiscal policy
choices," but any agreement must command the support from both political parties in order to be durable.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency.
While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social
disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown
dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day
when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help — churches and
private charities...

...A constitutionalist president's budget should do the following:

1) Reduce overall federal spending
2) Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3) Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4) Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the
other 50 percent to pay down the debt...

...As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them
“into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot
provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled
into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the
government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into
the street.

Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of
the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government's obligations to those who are already stuck in the system
and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a
completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs.
Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after
retirement.

Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those
concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and
setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.

the fatal flaw with the other thread is that 950 billion isn't enough to save our economy by a long shot. yes, increased taxes are needed, but they
should be used to pay down the debt, not allow the government to spend more.

the government is terribly inefficient, and tossing more money over to them so they can keep spending more is a poor decision. cut enough spending to
get rid of the deficit, THEN raise taxes to pay down the debt. we'd get our credit rating back if we could manage that.

Ooh, another copycat thread. And people say that ATS members don;t have any creativity. The Kernel is noticing a little hypocrisy though. It wasn't
all that long ago that the Kernel read Republicans saying this war is now Obama's war. But they are cutting Congress slack? Congress, remember when
Bush was the president and our GOP members said that it was the Dem congress that was to blame? Well the GOP is in charge of Congress now. Turn about
is fair play.

The Democrats, just like the Republicans, are two sides of a coin whose value is provided by the US taxpayers. They are all "Career Politicians"
too chummy with lobbyists, the DC lifestyle, and each other to 'get anything done.'

Our only saving grace is the 'rogue' pols (think Tea Party members) who are willing to go to DC on a 'mission' (cutting and balancing the budget).
Period. Those professional, political science, law school grads, who all seem to have come from the Ivy League mindset have brought this country to
the brink. Transcripts and college work and thesis matter (hello--still waiting on Obamas!) If they only 'learn' Keynesian Eco---well, doesn't
that explain a lot! Throw the 'shadow government of Czars' in there too. I KNOW I would rather have the Prof who teaches Econ 101 at the Community
College in charge rather than Geitner. At least the CC prof has the worry of budgeting his own expenses--the uber rich, second and third generation
DC accolytes not so much.

The Democrats, just like the Republicans, are two sides of a coin whose value is provided by the US taxpayers. They are all "Career
Politicians" too chummy with lobbyists, the DC lifestyle, and each other to 'get anything done.'

Our only saving grace is the 'rogue' pols (think Tea Party members) who are willing to go to DC on a 'mission' (cutting and balancing the budget).
Period. Those professional, political science, law school grads, who all seem to have come from the Ivy League mindset have brought this country to
the brink. Transcripts and college work and thesis matter (hello--still waiting on Obamas!) If they only 'learn' Keynesian Eco---well, doesn't that
explain a lot! Throw the 'shadow government of Czars' in there too. I KNOW I would rather have the Prof who teaches Econ 101 at the Community College
in charge rather than Geitner. At least the CC prof has the worry of budgeting his own expenses--the uber rich, second and third generation DC
accolytes not so much.

Well said - it kills me when I see or hear people elevating "experienced" politicians over the thoughts and opinions of the common man or others
usually perceived as outsiders. I thought they were supposed to be citizen representatives? And regardless, the vast majority have not been doing
well, have they...

Admitted up-front, I'm biased towards Paul going on several years now, but I can't understand the Cain thing. He might be better than some of those
currently plugged in, but all I tend to hear from him is "You gotta have a plan to determine the problem and then the solutions, 1 - 2 - 3 - 4..." -
not him actually expressing much understanding of the issues themselves up front or knowing the proper solutions already. I'd rather have someone who
already knows what's going on, and what steps are required, instead of someone who promises to be good at figuring it out. And the fact that he
always appeals to the advisors he would refer to - as pretty much everyone in office historically has - bothers me, since they tend to always be the
same advisors, suggesting the same courses.

Palin...? Eh - I don't think she'd annoy me too much to hang out with, and she's kind of easy on the eyes, but I don't think she's got the judgement
or awareness required (perhaps she's been getting better here since last time, though?). I see way too much of what I already don't like about
Bachmann in her...:

At this point, I like Bachmann as my only possible 2nd to Paul, but the near-constant pimping of her faith as a political ploy and belief in the power
of government over liberty (aggressive statements towards Iran and others, playing with the nuclear option, and desire for constitutional amendments
to prohibit things nationally instead of letting the states decide) may be a deal breaker for me.

Not a lot I can disagree with Paul on, and his more drastic views would of course be tempered by Congress as well as his realization of limits on his
own authority. Just wish he was 20 years younger and had tits - would probably be a much easier sale (apologies in advance for any offense
there!).

Sorry for the rant, but the markets will go crazy tomorrow--and we will all suffer and pay. The DC 'elite' no way.

I'm definitely curious to see what will happen with the markets. I'm inclined to think they'll somehow manage to smooth things over again, although
it's well beyond time for the wheels to fall off...

I think it would be very interesting and informative to have a "Citizens Committee" review the US budget as part of the ongoing debt reduction
discussions. Let a few "average Joes and average Janes" look at where all the money goes and see if they can find any cuts.

We could start with a lot of "studies" that come up with ridiculous conclusions such as "Men like Sex." We also send a lot of money to other
countries - like CHINA - that should be able to stand on their own (or deal with it on their own if they can't). I'm sure we could find lots of
waste that could be trimmed if the actual numbers were available to the public.

Now there is a better idea. What if the entire US Federal Budget (except security stuff - of course) was posted on an Internet site. Then we could
all see what we are paying for and write our representatives about the things we think are wasteful. Actually that would probably never be allowed
but it sure would be interesting.

Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Well the GOP is in charge of Congress now. Turn about is fair play.

Sorry but that is not true and pure spin.

The GOP controls the House, not Congress. The Senate is still controlled by the Democrats. Not that it matters though.

The real cause is out of control spending which falls squarely on BOTH Parties.

Until BOTH Parties stop the spending spree and do something about the debt, this will not be solved. As long as people keep playing this phoney
Democrats vs Republican game it will get worse. Two bad Presidents in a row lead to this with all this insane politicking and vote buying.
Unfortunately too much of the country is still in the pockets of the Parties and think this is a Football Game.

put ALL Federal spending out here on the internets...why didn't Barry PROMISE to do that and EVERY Bill would be up on said 'internets' for 72
hours...and, and, 'Americans' could submit comments...and, and...

So...what is your solution regarding (the entitlement programs)...what cuts do you think should be made?

That is easy. A straight 15% cut across the board, including my beloved Military.
Pull all forces out of the ME and let them burn their own house down.
Lower taxes on income.
Stop tax subsidies for GE. If they don't want to play here in the US, go to China and be fruitful, but not on the tax payers dime.
That 15% includes welfare. Sorry, all have to give, not just some.
Stop crap like TARP and QE.
Kick the UN out, and tell them to go to hell.
Cut foreign aid by 25%. Sorry, but people in the US come before people in any other country.

You forgot tarrifs on China (and all unequal tading partners), start drilling in Alsaka (to break OPEC's back) , Put caps on how much Treasurey Bonds
we sell to individual countries. Throw illegals off the welfare system and block them from free education.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.